4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Continued Azacitidine Therapy Beyond Time of First Response Improves Quality of Response in Patients With Higher-Risk Myelodysplastic Syndromes

期刊

CANCER
卷 117, 期 12, 页码 2697-2702

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/cncr.25774

关键词

azacitidine; myelodysplastic syndrome; quality of response; higher-risk disease; treatment duration

类别

资金

  1. Celgene Corporation
  2. Celgene
  3. Amgen
  4. Cephalon
  5. GSK
  6. Johnson Johnson
  7. Roche
  8. MSD
  9. Novartis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: In the AZA-001 trial, azacitidine (75 mg/m(2)/d subcutaneously for Days 1-7 of every 28-day cycle) demonstrated improved survival compared with conventional care regimens in patients with International Prognostic Scoring System-defined intermediate-2-or high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome and World Health Organization-defined acute myeloid leukemia with 20% to 30% bone marrow blasts. METHODS: This secondary analysis of the AZA-001 phase 3 study evaluated the time to first response and the potential benefit of continued azacitidine treatment beyond first response in responders. RESULTS: Overall, 91 of 179 patients achieved a response to azacitidine; responding patients received a median of 14 treatment cycles (range, 2-30). Median time to first response was 2 cycles (range, 1-16). Although 91% of first responses occurred by 6 cycles, continued azacitidine improved response category in 48% of patients. Best response was achieved by 92% of responders by 12 cycles. Median time from first response to best response was 3.5 cycles (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.0-6.0) in 30 patients who ultimately achieved a complete response, and 3.0 cycles (95% CI, 1.0-3.0) in 21 patients who achieved a partial response. CONCLUSIONS: Continued azacitidine therapy in responders was associated with a quantitative increase in response to a higher response category in 48% of patients, and therefore may enhance clinical benefit in patients with higher-risk MDS. Cancer 2011; 117: 2697-702. (C) 2011 American Cancer Society.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据